BaltACDI thought the PA's got their 2000 HP from two prime movers of 1000 HP each.
That describes Alco's earlier DL-109, with a pair of 539 engines (used singly in the switcher line), and of course EMD's E-units.
cx500 BaltACD I thought the PA's got their 2000 HP from two prime movers of 1000 HP each. That describes Alco's earlier DL-109, with a pair of 539 engines (used singly in the switcher line), and of course EMD's E-units.
BaltACD I thought the PA's got their 2000 HP from two prime movers of 1000 HP each.
I thought the PA's had a pair of 244's. Railroads were still big on 'limp in' ability for passenger power when the PA's were introduced.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The PA's had a single 244 prime mover rated at 2,000HP. Had the 244 been more reliable, Alco could have wiped EMD out of the passenger market as a single engin locomotive is much cheaper to make than a twin engine design. It wasn't uncommon for passenger trains to have more than 1 PA or E up front, so there would have been a form of limp home functionality.
One other PA advantage, the PA had 40" wheels while the E's had 36" wheels, which allowed for a beefier traction motor.
The heavier electrical gear explains why a fair number of PA's wound up in freight service as passenger schedules were discontinued.
My recollections stand corrected.
The PA also featured a very capable dynamic braking system, which EMD had yet to offer on E units at the time. That was a big factor in some railroads (Santa Fe, Southern Pacific) deciding to purchase PA's.
The four D&H units were rebuilt with V12 251's, and rated at 2400 HP. Doyle McCormack's NKP 190 retains this configuration, but now contains a donor engine from a ex-BC Rail M420B
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
My guess is there's more Alcos RS and Centuries still in operating condition than GE's first generation Universal series.
There are, but a lot of that is shortlines that dieselized with first generation Alco castoffs found it natural to transition to second generation models when those were sold off. GE's switchers were different enough that railroads that had them didn't tend to buy U-boats.
Alco's failure also had a lot to do with its status as a relatively small outfit trying to compete with two major congolomorations that had the size and financing arms to make their locomotives cheaper than Alco could in an era where railroads were desperate.
The 244 had its problems, but Alco would've been fine had GE not entered the market.
MLW lasted a lot longer in Canada, where it was difficult for GE to compete due to tariffs on imported equipment (this is pre-NAFTA, of course). But poor reliability did them in eventually, too. The M636 was their SD50, only sooner. Turns out you could only push the 251 so far.
GE has been quite ruthless in ending parts support for their older models. They ceased supporting the Dash-7's about 10 or 15 years ago, to say nothing of the Universal series.
Off topic, but I happened upon this old Dash-7 thread. I especially enjoyed the last post by Mr. Randy Stahl:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/46131.aspx
you guess right
The question was asked:
Were Alco Diesels "Bad" Locomotives(?)
Compared to anything GE, the RS11 was heads above!!!
.
From an operator's standpoint EMD wins hands down as the best diesel locomotive, ALCO, GE, Fairbanks Morse not so good.
Here is a GE and ALCO.
Junk.
Just glanced through this, but haven't seen it mentioned that it really depends on the type of service.
For high speed passenger service and mainline freights, Alco and the other minority makes weren't too well off. But the switchers were tough beasts that didn't require lots of tlc and often lasted many years.
What killed many a minority switcher wasn't reliability nor overall condition as much as it was the cascade effect of geeps being demoted from road service, a decline even back then in the need for switchers, and the mechanical department's desire to cut costs by reducing the variety of parts that need to be kept in inventory.
And the roadswitchers seemed to excel in the jobs that on the surface would seem the toughest out there. Slow heavy trains were their forte, thanks in part to GE electrical systems and diesel engines that didn't like high speed running but would pull hard all die long for years on end. They lived in steel mills, ore roads, and so on much longer than they did in more mundane types of service.
And at least in the case of Fairbanks Morse, teething troubles crippled them. By the time the problems were largely ironed out, FM was in corporate turmoil, dieselization was virtually complete and the country was in a recession leaving a dismal market for new power, and most roads saw more value at that point in eliminating oddballs than they did in paying for factory upgrades to cure their woes.
Leo_AmesAnd at least in the case of Fairbanks Morse, teething troubles crippled them
Replacing a liner, which is something you will do more than a few times between overhauls, required removing the top crankshaft! Have to unbolt all those rod and main bearing caps, lift the crank, slide out the offending liner, then redo all those bearing caps.
On an EMD, you just unbolt one rods, take off the crab nuts, unbolt some jewelry and out she comes.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Yeah, that was a major issue.
Fairbanks Morse eventually addressed it to a degree with engine improvements that decreased the need to to replace liners and an engine exchange program that let all the actual engine work be done at Beloit with the backshop just removing and replacing the engine. But it was always going to be more more expensive and involved than similar work on a EMD. Definitely the OP's achilles heel in railroad service.
As a testament perhaps to their belated improvements, the Milwaukee Road's switcher fleet with new OP's from a mid 1960's or so factory rebuild program survived the 1970's in large numbers, despite being on the hit list for most of their final decade which kept them out of the backshop and meant an automatic retirement if significant work was called for.
It was only the 1980 retrenchment that finally did them in when the Milwaukee Road suddenly had a large power surplus, allowing them to retire the remaining Fairbanks Morse fleet.
In the case of Milwaukee's FM switchers, it probably helped that Beloit wasn't that far away.
JUNK!!!
Not junk!
BigJim JUNK!!!
I agree. EMD is far and away the very best diesel locomotive. GE, especially the 'u-boats', were not from an operator standpoint suitable freight locomotives. I would venture to say that even Scott Pruitt would have banned the ALCOs.
BigJim JUNK!!! Not junk!
Is that Fairbanks Morse or an ALCO?
Not junk.
Looking through stuff, five times longer was typical to replace a piston liner than on an EMD (Not to mention of course the need for an overhead crane).
Helps put it into perspective how significant this issue was with the top crankshaft having to be removed. Even if piston liners only needed to be replaced with EMD-like frequency, it was much more involved and time consuming.
And alas, the interval between replacement was anything but EMD-like.
CSSHEGEWISCH In the case of Milwaukee's FM switchers, it probably helped that Beloit wasn't that far away.
Undoubtedly
Weren't they even an online customer for the Milwaukee Road, with the Milwaukee Road's mainline there used as a test track for FM?
I'm sure that close proximity influenced the Milwaukee Road's affinity for FM products for over 35 years.
The fact that Alcos are still running today past there prime and that Alco is outtta business says something.
Leo_Ames Weren't they even an online customer for the Milwaukee Road, with the Milwaukee Road's mainline there used as a test track for FM? I'm sure that close proximity influenced the Milwaukee Road's affinity for FM products for over 35 years.
GMAC financing was available for EMD locomotives. I am not sure if ALCO, F-M, Baldwin or Lima had such a treasure chest available.
The Alcos in NSW Australia were basically the conversion from steam to diesel , I was told that Goodwin built Alco locomotives were cheaper than Clyde built EMD units but there were a few "GMs" about to make it look not one sided .
As mentioned above the NSW 80 class were out around the end of the 70s and still being built around the time of the first 81 classes .
Pretty hard for a 12 251 Alco powered unit to compete with a Clyde EMD unit with a 16 645 turbocharged donk and Dash 2 and super series .
By 1980 and virtually new the 80s were basically garbage by comparison and effectively nailed the lid on the Alco coffin in NSW . To be fair prior to adhesion enhancements like super series our lighter locomotives probably couldn't put much more than 2000-2500 Hp usefully to the rail .
BDA The Alcos in NSW Australia were basically the conversion from steam to diesel , I was told that Goodwin built Alco locomotives were cheaper than Clyde built EMD units but there were a few "GMs" about to make it look not one sided . As mentioned above the NSW 80 class were out around the end of the 70s and still being built around the time of the first 81 classes . Pretty hard for a 12 251 Alco powered unit to compete with a Clyde EMD unit with a 16 645 turbocharged donk and Dash 2 and super series . By 1980 and virtually new the 80s were basically garbage by comparison and effectively nailed the lid on the Alco coffin in NSW . To be fair prior to adhesion enhancements like super series our lighter locomotives probably couldn't put much more than 2000-2500 Hp usefully to the rail .
243129Is that Fairbanks Morse or an ALCO?
It is an ALCO T6
dirtyhandstree huggers should stay in the woods & leave railroading to those of us who know how a little smoke never killed anything
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.